Ophiolite

If we restrict ourselves to planets then the current list would look like this: Mercury: 0 Venus: 0 Earth: 1 + [1] (Cruithne is a small asteroid that interacts gravitationally with the Earth, but is not a true satellite, at least in the conventional sense. See, for example - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html) Mars: 2 Jupiter: 63 (Difficult to keep up to date with discoveries here. The NASA site currently lists 63: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/joviansatfact.html.) Saturn: 48 + 12 (There are a dozen unconfirmed moons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_moons. ) Uranus: 27 (See, http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus&Display=Moons) Neptune: 13 (See, http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Neptune&Display=Moons) Pluto: 1 (Unless you want to consider Pluto-Charon a double planet.) That runs between 155 and 168.

I suggest this is more applicable to you than to me. I have followed the discussion perfectly well.Pangloss reflected on the comparative ease of seealing out a toxic atmosphere - (such as a would be provided, for example, by a denser Martian carbon dioxide atmosphere). Thus there is no particular issue with carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere, even if it were at toxic levels, since we can readily keep it out of any living environments. Your reference to the 5% toxicity level implies (I clearly used the word implications in my post) that somehow this largely carbon dioxide Martian atmosphere could somehow infiltrate the living environment and achieve, or exceed that 5% level. That certainly strikes me as nonsensical. This requires absolutely no time at all.

The implications of this statement are patent nonsense, perhaps because the statement was poorly thought through. Carbon dioxide is dangerously toxic at levels of 5% by volume at standard Earth atmospheric pressure. The toxicity is determined by the partial pressure of the gas and at Mars standard atmospheric pressure we have only (back of the envelope calculation) the equivalent of less than 1% by volume. In any case the whole argument is irrelevant since there ain't any oxygen to breathe and the partial pressure, even if the entire Martian atmosphere was oxygen, would be too low to force it into the bloodstream. So I'm left wondering what the hell you are all warbling about.

I could tell you where Jimmy is buried, but then I'd have to kill you.

Jerk is a subjective description of a person engaging in a suite of actions (and more often reactions) that are perceived in particular manner. The key words here are subjective and perceived (as Phi for All suggested). The kind of actions that may be interepreted as those of a jerk likely cover a large part of the spectrum of human behaviour. As such almost any book or research paper on human behaviour will touch on aspects of 'jerkiness', but it will take careful reading (with an open mind) to identify which are relevant. My own observation is that in 90% of case when someone calls someone a jerk what they are actually saying is 'this person's behaviour is at odds with what I think is right and proper, and I don't like them much.' An objective assessment of the situation that has generated the characterisation typically reveals as much blame on the side of the name caller.

Fascinating. We should not forget, however, that Hunt was something of a Walter Mitty character, given the opportunity to live out some of his fantasies. I find his claims plausible, but not convincing.

Three tiered, if you include creationist websites.

This may partially answer your question: Falini, G. et al Control of Aragonite or Calcite Polymorphism by Mollusk Shell Macromolecules Science 5 January 1996: Vol. 271. no. 5245, pp. 67 - 69 Many mineralizing organisms selectively form either calcite or aragonite, two polymorphs of calcium carbonate with very similar crystalline structures. Understanding how these organisms achieve this control has represented a major challenge in the field of biomineralization. Macromolecules extracted from the aragonitic shell layers of some mollusks induced aragonite formation in vitro when preadsorbed on a substrate of -chitin and silk fibroin. Macromolecules from calcitic shell layers induced mainly calcite formation under the same conditions. The results suggest that these macromolecules are responsible for the precipitation of either aragonite or calcite in vivo. Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/271/5245/67

On the contrary, a primitive difference in genetic character would lean one to consider multiple ancestors, which would be favoured by pan spermia.

You are actually serious. That is what is so disturbing. These actions are improper. I care not a jot about how many precedents a gaggle of lawyers can dream up. I am opposed to the actions on two grounds:1) If any person can be detained in this way, then I can be detained in this way. I will not impose on others what I am not prepared to accept for myself. 2) It is dumb. Mind blowlingly, irredeemably stupid. It increases the risk for everyone in the Western world because it is so obviously wrong that it will ebncourage many to become terrorists, others to give support to terrorists, and yet others to provide tacit support to terrorists. This increases the risks for me, for my children and for my grandchildren. That means these dumb acts are a direct assault on my safety and that of my offspring. How do you suggest I react to that?

So educate me. In this context what are the alternatives to either defending principles, or defending dogma?

You can either fight for principles, in which case Guantanamo is a sorry blot on a noble country. Or, you can fight for 'my country, right or wrong', in which case Guantanamo is logical, international relations are in the gutter (or lower) and the US deserves any and all retribution that comes its way. As Sisyphus remarked, the choice is yours, as are the consequences.

There is a tendency for psychology, and rather obviously psychiatry, to focus on the abnormal, and especially the negatively abnormal. This is unfortunate, since evolution is more about the normal (the preponderance of a particular allele in a population) or the positively abnormal (the emergence of a beneficial mutation). Separately, it is worth noting that evolution largely depends upon and is initiated by changes in behaviour which are then facilitated by genetic changes. In that regard pschology (and as noted, ethology) should be of primary interest to evolutionary biologists.

No it doesn't. No one ever contended that producing amino acids would be especially difficult. The probabalistic issue is over stringing them together by the hundreds - and in the right order - to make useful proteins. We have also found amino acids, by the bucker load, in meterorites and they have been detected in interstellar space. Interestingly enough a group, possibly at Ames, fired amino acid laden ice at a wall with velocity equivalent to that likely during cometary impact. The object was to determine if the amino acids would remain intact and so provide organic materials on the early Earth. Not only did they remain intact, but they linked up to produce polypetides, a precursor of proteins proper. Mokele is quite right: the Miller-Urey experiment assumed a strongly reducing atmosphere. We no longer think this was likely.

Since it was never accepted by any in the anthropological community I don't quite see how it could be discarded. It certainly offers considerably more meat than the discredited savannah theory, and contrary to what you say is beginning to garner some support in various quarters.

I must echo Paranoia's query. What do you mean by being 'open' to her? What do you mean by your reference to "human contact or touch"? You aren't being vague, but downright incomprehensible. It is clear you are feeling really pained by this experience and it is having a continuing negative effect. As I think you can see there is a wish here to help you at least understand what has happened, but to do that I for one need a clearer picture of what you said and did. Hang in there.

Astounding! One might have imagined that a twenty plus year veteran of NASA, as DH identifies himself, would be capable of reading. Apparently not. DH, you expressed an opinion (clearly labelling it as such) that NASA's primary goal was human space exploration. As I worked my way through this thread I found SwansonT had elegantly dealt with that: it is fine as an opinion, but it does not reflect the official NASA position. If there is any cherrypicking going on here it is stemming from you. Secondly, SwansonT is objecting to the current plans for manned exploration on the basis that they are ill conceived, fail to adequately focus on the science, and (if I read him right) stem from a political will rather than a scientific goal. He is not objecting to manned spaceflight as such. Now to more serious matters. Could we, on any practical budget, have conducted the exploration of the gas giant systems with manned craft? I am at a loss to see how this would be possible. Equally, the notion of exploring Mars only with robotic craft is insane. A proper Martian exploration program would employ any and every practical means: humans, orbiters, rovers, floaters. I am with Spyman when he says "I think the ultimate goal of humankind is to preserve our species and the best way to achieve race survival is to spread out beyond our solar system, to create independent colonies on planets orbiting other stars." However, Spyman, I disagree with you when you say the moon is a good step. Cut out the middleman. Go for Mars directly. I'm an unabashed Zubrin fan. The delta-V for Mars is little more than that for the Moon. (So yes CPL Luke, it is a matter of scale.)

I'm just a simple person, trained as a geologist, so what do I know? I spent the first decade and a half of my career intimately involved in oil exploration projects, so what do I know? I've spent another decade and a half directly involved in drilling and production activities, so what do I know? I live and work in the European capital of oil, and friends and acquaintances tend to hold positions within oil companies, so what do I know? Well obviously anything I know is purely anecdotal, and emotionally biased, and can be safely ignored. This is all I know: Peak Oil Man is essentially correct; Bascule and PanGloss are displaying the self deluding acts of rationalisation I expect to see practiced by creationists. I am not about to present supporting data for this view: Peak Oil Man has done a superlative job of that. I don't expect to convert Bascule or Pangloss: they are so buried in the certainty of their rightness it has the taste of righteousness. I do hope that my brief post may encourage a few others to re-examine their opinion on this matter.

The Minister of Transport is accountable to Parliament, and specifically to the House of Commons. The House still has real power, though it has been diluted by the actions of Blair and Thatcher. They can and have called Minister's to account, with the result that said Minister's have been forced to resign. Such actions are often taken by the House as a result of prompting by the public (typically, but not always through the media). In constrast the European Parliament has very little power and, zero visibility. What you say is in theory true. In practice the Commissioners do what they or their 'sponsors' are in favour of without fear of being called to serious account. This is oligarchy by the back door. Now if we were to give the Parliament real power, with the Commissioners acting as the executors of that power as directed by relevant committees,then you would have something that would be democratic and more importantly would also work.

I looked at the article to locate a reference for the original research. I found the clincher in the last line: He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

The EEC no longer exists. It became the EC (European Community) as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. A fuller discussion of the the various European Union/Community relationships may be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community Someone above referred to a hidden agenda to move Europe towards a federal monolith. There is nothing hidden about the agenda. Many of those who are in favour of the economic cooperation (it was orignally called the Common Market, in English) are appalled by the efforts at one-size-fits-all political integration. Even if one is in favour of this development the abrogration of rights to commissioners, rather than to a duly elected parliament, mean that Europe is heading towards a de facto oligarchy. This should form the basis of any meaningful discussion about the EU.

Absolutely correct. I was quoting the 20 degrees from memory. The problem is that the rover is getting older and more worn out all the time. Even a fifteen degree incline on difficult ground could be too much for it by the time it is ready to leave.On the plus side, you may have noted my reference to the 'official' life span of the rovers. It seems to have been a tradition for interplanetary probes to be constructed much more robustly than the specifications call for. So, who knows how much longer they may keep going. The crater is deeper than Endurance crater and so exposes more of the bedrock, allowing us to see further back into Martian stratigraphic history The bluff exposed on the right of the crater, for example, is 21m* tall. The formations at the top are similar to those in Endurance, where a thicness of 8m was exposed. So, here we have almost twice as much exposed rock from an earlier period than that represented by the Endurance rocks. From their chracter and composition we can assess their evironment of depostion. It should be interesting. *Again, I am quoting from memory.

If the mission controllers decide to descend into the crater (and how could they resist?) this is likely where Opportunity will remain. a) It is unlikely that the rover will still be functioning after it has completed a lengthy study of the crater - it has already exceeded its official design life by a factor of ten. b) It can handle a 20 degree slope on firm ground. There is a good chance there will be no practical route back out once it is in. So, there it will remain till an independent Mars government sets up a tourist observation site on the rim of the crater in 2134.

You have fallen into a logical fallacy. I have stated that some of those who practice pseudoscience will do so because of a lack of education. I have not stated that all those who lack an education will be predisposed to practice pseudoscience. I am surprised that you cannot see in the form and content of posts by certain individuals on this forum (individuals who I think we could agree are practising pseudoscience) clear evidence that they are doing so in part because they lack an education in the sciences.

I am biased. I learnt my biology through palaeontology (and chemistry). I can't imagine how one could learn it properly in the vacuum that exists if palaeontology is ignored, or treated superficially. Given the mounting resistance to evolution by fundamentalists and its central role in biology, there is even greater need today to make palaeontology a central plank of any proper biology education.